Bud's Offshore Energy (BOE)

Q. Howe (Commission): I want to suggest to you, sir, that you have rather reversed the direction of responsibility, in giving that answer, because PTT should have placed itself in a position properly to assist this Commission rather than taking a passive role, sending you along to listen to the evidence so that you could find out what had happened; do you agree with that?
A. Jacob (PTTEP): Yes, that would not be an appropriate response, and I don’t believe it was the intent of the company to do that.

Comment: PTTEP has seemingly been as passive in their investigation as they were in their well planning.  Why has there been no modeling of well fluid movement prior and subsequent to the removal of the 9 5/8″ cap?

Jacob: I was advised that, on an initial assessment, there was a high risk of a fatality should the capping option be followed through; that the Alert personnel were willing to carry it out. I called a management meeting, and that was presented to us by the well construction manager, Craig Duncan, and at that point the company’s decision was that the capping operation was not an acceptable solution at that time, that they were to continue looking at it as to ways to improve the safety ability of it.

Comment: Given the status of batch tieback operations at the time of the blowout, a surface capping operation would have been extremely dangerous and perhaps infeasible.  Not only was the well left with no barriers, it was also left in a state that virtually precluded surface capping.  Only the 20″ casing was accessible and there was no cement in the 20″ x 13 3/8″ annulus.  Even if they were able to slip BOPE or some other type of specialty valving over the 20″ and seal it hydraulically (or by some other means), the 20″ casing would not have had sufficient integrity to shut-in or kill the well.  To kill the well, they would have probably had to tie-back  the 13 3/8 with the well flowing and connect BOPE.   If feasible, that would be very risky.

That said, PTTEP’s submission and testimony advise that ALERT, a well control specialist company, had a plan for a surface capping operation.  According to Mr. Jacob,  ALERT was willing to proceed with that plan.  ALERT is an emergency well control responder, and their plan should have been fully vetted with the regulators.  I cannot understand why the Commission has no plans for ALERT to testify at these hearings.  How do you assess the blowout response without questioning ALERT?

Other comments:

1. Will there be any questioning about the selection process for the relief well rig?  The reasoning provided in the PTTEP submission raises contractual issues that should not be a factor in an emergency response.
2. PTTEP’s report to NOPSA (Federal regulator) included information on key Montara issues that was (at best) misleading.
3. Mr. Jacob made several comments about how the company has learned from its mistakes.  Should the company be given that opportunity?  While the industry as a whole must learn from disasters like this, should the responsible company be allowed to simply return to business?  Australia should consider legislation that allows the regulator to disqualify companies that so flagrantly disregard their safety management responsibilities.
4. More evidence was presented that drilling contractor safety cases have created confusion about accountability and responsibility.
5. According to the testimony, the Northern Territory Department of Resources converted to a non-prescriptive regulatory regime in 2004.  Why are they still approving well plans and deviations?  This would seem to be contrary to the “operator responsibility” regulatory philosophy.  What standards are applied by NT in their reviews?  How do they act on significant program revisions (e.g. substituting corrosion caps for cement plugs) so quickly?
6. PTTEP’s attorney spent most of his time drawing attention to how hard Mr. Jacob and his staff worked after the blowout.  Is the Commissioner supposed to be surprised? Impressed? Sympathetic?
7. Like Mr. Jacob, I had no idea what “tendentious” meant.  According to Mr. Howe, it means “seeking to persuade in terms of allaying such concerns as the regulator might have.”  Not exactly the dictionary definition, but highly apt in this case 🙂